Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD
Actually I totally understand, but there are key differences:
1) I argued for my displeasure of the God of War series. I didn't play 1 and 2 and shit on three for havng the same gameplay.
2) While I did get that sense of 'Wild West paint over GTA' while playing the game... I like GTA. I even hailed RDR's likeness to GTA as a strong suit. Hell I wouldn't have stopped playing GTA4 if the multiplayer wasn't batshit clunky (issues RDR solved).
I mean, surely you knew this game was mostly GTA in the Wild West, with improvements that would only be appreciated by people who are satisfied with the series. I will, however, agree that RDR isn't light years ahead of GTA4 in execution.
It would seem you're just into R*'s style of sandbox games. There's nothing wrong with that.
|
Like I say, I loved the GTA games up until 4, thought they peaked at Vice City.
Of course, I expected it to mostly an overhaul of GTA, but the publicity surrounding it emphasised certain things that made it seem the game would not be so linear. Like the Fame and Honour system suggesting it would change the way you could play this game. In reality, they have very little actual effect, the missions you do and the people you interact with do not change whether you behave like an outlaw or a great guy.
Going back to the Fallout 3 comparison, there's the actual prospect that if you kill a certain person or behave a certain way, then parts of the story change and you associate with different factions. You know when you interact with a character that you may close off something but open something else. I thought RDR would have this element, but it is absolutely linear in its design. In fact, all being a cunt does is make the game more difficult, rather than merely be an alternative way of reaching the same goal.
And again, I hoped the Wild West setting would re-vitalise the formula for me but it appears that is not so.